tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52382183826208042502016-09-28T08:32:35.822-07:00Experimental ErrorFUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-48639448918109192872014-08-15T07:27:00.002-07:002014-08-15T07:27:47.918-07:00Different strokes for different folksThere are many roles folk can play in doing politics. Each role is important for having a functional campaign or organization. There are multiple ways you can divide up these roles, but what follows is a fairly simply and oft-used break out of responsibilities:<br /><br /><br />Activists<br />Leaders<br />Organizers<br /><br /><br />Now, when you begin, you'll likely be taking on all three roles at once. So it's hard to differentiate. But it's worthwhile to note that when working with others that this is a very usual way of dividing up organizational structure. You need more activists than leaders, and you need more leaders than organizers. Also, responsibility increases as you move down the chain. Even though this is so, I put activists up on top -- not because it's harder, but because in the end, if you're a leader or an organizer, your power is derived from your activists.<br /><br />What are activists?<br /><br />Activists do things to further a goal. Rather than just agreeing with you [your base], they'll go the extra mile and allocate time or money or both to your mission. They're <i>committed</i>&nbsp;to making it happen. Your base will think you have good ideas, and out of your base you'll get activists that <i>make those ideas happen</i>. Now, it tends to all be volunteer time so you can only do so much with that. That's important to realize -- and relates back to my previous post about taking care of yourself -- but it's still a lot more than most folk are willing to give.<br /><br />Activists are rare, comparitively speaking .They're gold. Without activists you got nothin'. Never let your position as leader or organizer go to your head, because ultimately you ain't the one doing it -- you have more responsibility and all, but it's your activists that matter.<br /><br />Them's the breaks.<br /><br /><br />What are leaders?<br /><br />We can expound on this for way too long. I have been guilty of doing so before. A good rule for knowing whether someone is a leader [and not a good rule for making yourself into a leader] is that leaders have followers. Done, and done.<br /><br />There's much pontification on the ephemeral nature of leadership. "Don't worry too much about it" is my advice. There's no magical formula. If you become a leader at one point, you may not be a leader at another point. Leaders come and go, and it's a good experience for everyone to get regardless -- because then you have a stronger whole.<br /><br />On the other end of the spectrum, if you do this stuff enough, you'll probably run into folk that want to challenge the notion of leadership, and act like it doesn't exist. The best advice I have is to agree with them -- because, ultimately, leadership is ephemeral, and as such, it can't be controlled very well anyways. Mostly all these folk mean, in the end, is that they want things to be equal, which is certainly accomplishable even if leaders happen to emerge.<br /><br />In the end, whether someone is a leader is more a product of circumstance and the values that people hold within a group. They'll follow people they trust and respect, and you'll want to find people who not only can earn trust and respect, but also -- if you're lucky -- actually deserve that trust and respect because they have good judgment.<br /><br />But, do not fret too much about it. What's far more important is just finding people who will work together and trying to work towards your goals. Leaders will likely emerge in the process.<br /><br /><br /><br />What is an organizer?<br /><br />An organizer is something of an ephemeral concept, as well. They're the person who is responsible for some strategy or campaign to be seen to completion. They connect people together who would work well together. They're good at spotting leaders as they emerge.<br /><br />There is much that can be said, but the gist is that an organizer doesn't have time to be an activist, and doesn't have time to be a leader, because being an activist requires time to do actions, and leaders require time to see to hteir activist's needs. Organizers just make sure things go alright, which can mean sometimes picking up an activist role, sometimes picking up a leadership role, and ultimately just making sure people follow through on the things they say they'll do. So you need people skills, you need contact information, and you need an incredible amount of patience -- as well as a sense for power dynamics, and how things in the world of organizations work.<br /><br /><br /><br />At first, when you begin trying to engage government -- or whatever it is you want to organize within -- you'll be the activist-leader-organizer super hero. You will likely burn out if you keep doing that. So keep looking out for others that might be on your side. But until then, you are what I like to call "the boot strap". Just know that it's going to take, like, FOREVER to get anywhere. And I mean FOREVER. So don't set your expectations too high. Just get to work and patiently do what you can do and TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF.<br /><br /><br />As I noted, there's a lot that can be said for each of these roles. These are just some notions -- notions I had to learn the hard way by screwing up a bunch. I'm hoping that by at least having the words and a general gist on them that can help any other boot straps out there.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-57081334139211254782014-08-14T07:15:00.001-07:002014-08-14T07:15:17.876-07:00A counter-intuitive ruleAdvice that I've never been good at transmitting...<br /><br />There's a time in every activist's life where they became "Politicized" It doesn't necessarily happen all at once, but there's a story behind every activist where they sort of "woke up" to the importance of what they're doing. The difficulties in trying to bring in others is a subject related but different from today's blog post. This is the more important advice that's so hard to transmit: The one counter-intuitive rule which is important for every newly "awaked" activist to understand.<br /><br /><br />TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF.<br /><br />It's exciting when you first realize that you, with your mind, your hands, your will, can actually do something about what you care about. You come out of a slump where you were used to always being handed the world as some kind of passive observer that had to accept what was given to them because . . . well, because. And now, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING!!!! YESSSSSSSS....<br /><br />Very exciting, by all means! I don't want to damper that enthusiasm. Sometimes, that enthusiasm is all you have to keep yourself going. And <i>that</i>&nbsp;is more what I want to speak to.<br /><br /><br />While you are excited now, the struggle is called struggle for a reason. And while there's a <i>danger</i>&nbsp;in thinking that things take time -- because perhaps you don't do anything, then, or you just accept what someone else says -- the struggle does, in fact, take time. Social systems move <i>sllloooowwwwwwwwwwwlllllyyyyyyy</i>.<br /><br />And so what I want is an activist that I'll see around five years down the line, even if it means seeing them only once a month in those five years, rather than an activist that I'll see every day for 6 months who then disappears because they've lost all their energy. Their sentiments and enthusiasm remains, but they've burned out.<br /><br />It seems counter-intuitive, but doing very little over time is more important than doing A LOT, now that you've AWOKEN, and then killing yourself. You're only human. You have actual needs -- social, professional, physical, esoteric, and so forth -- and power is only one out of many, many needs. You NEED to take care of your other needs. It can seem so harsh -- I mean, depending on your issue, you could [literally] be dealing with life or death issues, and are you really going to choose seeing this baseball game on Sunday when you could be doing research on the police officer that killed your close friend?<br /><br />And my answer to you is -- YES. Yes you are. And you are going to watch the ball game on Sunday not because you don't care about your friend. You clearly do. You clearly care about the topic. You do things to further the struggle. But you're going to do it because you have many needs, and you're going to actually do better in the struggle if you're still around five years down the line than you are if you burn out in 6 months.<br /><br />It seems counter-intuitive, but I can't even count the number of activists I've seen flash in the pan just like that.<br /><br />Which is why I say I'm very bad at transmitting this advice. If there was a better way for me to tell people I'd surely use it. But that early enthusiasm is almost addicting. It keeps you powerhousing, and you think that, with just one more meeting, you can call it quits and go home and feel accomplished.<br /><br />But the struggle doesn't work that way. It's not a job like building a house is a job. It's a <i>struggle</i>.<br /><br />And I need you there later down the line, so in order to struggle, you just make sure you take care of yourself.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-91260055486247351422014-08-13T07:26:00.002-07:002014-08-13T07:26:20.843-07:00"Be pragmatic!"One notion I've come across ten thousand times over is the notion of practicality.<br /><br />As in "I'm just doing what's practical...", or the more oft-used expression, "You can't do that, you need to be practical..."<br /><br />While there's something to be said for making better or worse decisions within politics -- after all, if there wasn't then there'd be no skill to learn in the first place -- I want to highlight this notion because I believe it's a phrase used to stop people from acting against the interests of those already in power, to such and such a degree, at least.<br /><br />Let us take the case of voting for the lesser of two evils.<br /><br />It will often be said by an organizer that the lesser of two evils isn't great, but it is better -- and so, you ought to vote for such and such a person. Then, on top of that, you'll have folk who don't really know much better repeating this line of argument, as if our social spheres were natural, physical laws which we have no influence over -- and that you therefore <i>must accept</i>&nbsp;the lesser of two evils.<br /><br />While it is true that many people are not willing to do the work required to change what our choices are -- for it is a good deal more work than simply going to a poll and registering your opinion -- it is also false to say that there's nothing more that can be done.<br /><br />Similarly: an organizer will often dissuade more rambunctious ideas from being implemented in favor of, say, a petition or speaking to city council or voting for such and such a candidate. While there are decent motivations -- often times -- for directing action in this manner, it is also simultaneously false to presume that this is always the most pragmatic course of action.<br /><br />It is a <i>safe</i>&nbsp;form of action. And unsafe actions have consequences which can be deeply demoralizing to an uprepared group of activists, which can destroy a movement.<br /><br />However, even though this is so, it's also the case that if we are willing to put up with the inevitable and sometimes harsh consequences that, if planned out well, we can get more movement on such and such a proposal by breaking the law than we can through usual means.<br /><br />The reason why the safer avenue is pragmatic, according to the day to day of political action, is because people are not as committed to their ideals as they like to tell themselves [I think this is a human feature, not something to be lamented, just something to be known], and they will be crushed by the powers that be -- meaning, idealogically, they'll retreat and take up other beliefs -- if they go out on a limb, and risk more than their reputation.<br /><br />Further, there are already organizations in place which understand these standard methods. If we find other ways to penetrate decision-making apparatuses [legislators, owners, city councils, county boards, etc.] then we are [possibly] a challenge to those who are used to brokering power in the name of their particular cause. It's not a zero sum game, but folk like their positions and don't like the idea of being threatened out of them. So, if you take the pragmatic approach then you'll be within the box those brokers are used to dealing with.<br /><br />Now, there's often reasons why those brokers are the brokers -- they often know what they're doing, and it really is genuinely safer to use avenues which are in place. But on the other side of things I think it's important to highlight how it is they have gotten their venerated positions -- not by the means they presently proscribe for folk wanting grievances addressed, but through the use of direct action.<br /><br />And direct action can be much more scary and risky than usual methods for doing politics.<br /><br />But it's also how power is actually won. If that be our goal then it's actually much more pragmatic than any program or procedural method proscribed by present power brokers.<br /><br />And that's a very important thing to know.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-33359853429568817942014-08-12T14:31:00.002-07:002014-08-12T14:31:24.879-07:00Maybe once again. . . I was beginning to write a "Farewell" post on this blog. It seemed past due for a post, and as I was looking at some of my older material it struck me just how much I've changed since starting this gig up.<br /><br />But as I wrote the farewell I tripped across an explanation to keep this going.<br /><br />The reason I started this blog was to keep myself sharp on the material I was learning in chemistry class, and give a resource to people who might need it to help them learn the material.<br /><br />The philosophy posts were in a similar vein, in that I thought people should know more about philosophy, and writing about philosophy helped me to learn.<br /><br />These are the posts that get a lot more traction on the site, I've noticed. And I have learned, since my last few posts, just how different politics and science really are. [hypothesis: why scientists are not politically involved...]<br /><br />Including how each ought to be taught.<br /><br />That is to say -- I began all wrong, and that wrong-ness is reflected in my posts. I was treating it far too theoretically for it to be of practical assistance to people. And people really ought to -- in the same way they ought to be familiar with science and philosophy -- know how to engage the seats of power.<br /><br />Even more than philosophical speculation, there is a real dearth of knowledge or understanding with respect to really doing politics -- a kind of sense that politics is dirty, inane, or hopeless.<br /><br />It is my belief that these attitudes only benefit the exact sort of people who are more than willing to make politics this kind of game -- but, even more so, that they only work to the advantage of those already in power.<br /><br />How to, exactly, overcome such frustrations among the non-political, the de-politicized, and so forth -- these are questions I think about a great deal. And, unfortunately, they aren't the sort of questions which one can check against a professor or a text book. They don't even work in a similar vein to the more academic realms which motivated this blog, initially.<br /><br /><br />But then -- that doesn't make politics any less important. And, truth be told, most of my traffic [these days] comes from google searches related to either Kant or chemistry -- probably students looking for answers, and [so I can hope] getting a little direction on their questions so they can pass their exams.<br /><br />And given the title, and just how many mistakes I've made [and continue to make, and think about, and try to correct] in all these various realms of reflection -- even though I'm a very different sort of person, and what I think about is very different, I came to think that I [perhaps] ought to consider continuing along this line, keeping all the embarassing speculations from before to tag along.<br /><br />Perhaps you'll see that, no matter where you're at now, you can become at least passingly proficient in political matters.<br /><br />I can hope.<br /><br />And, at the very least, I don't have to bother figuring out all the annoying aesthetics again. ;)FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-80900936441601274742012-10-09T18:22:00.002-07:002012-10-09T18:22:10.673-07:00Two Problem PeopleIn grassroots organizing there are a number of problems that need to be worked out in the moment. There are likely other sorts of people that need to be dealt with, and in different kinds of ways, but the two kinds of people I'm talking about here are people who could potentially be beneficial to your group.<br /><br />These are the talkers and the dictators.<br /><br />Talkers and dictators are potentially beneficial to your group because they have a passion for the topic. That's why, usually, they're talkers or dictators. Talkers can even be beneficial in their trait of talking, it's just a matter of ensuring that this talking is directed correctly. Dictators, on the other hand, are passionate but their dictator trait needs to be altered.<br /><br />Dealing with talkers is a matter of organizing procedure. Talkers like to talk, and often talk over others, or will draw out their comments at length while reitterating some of their points. Starting the meeting off with the rules of discussion, which includes a "stack", a time limit, and a talking stick is a good way of dealing with talkers. You need to be polite but firm in censoring anyone in a meeting as a facilitator, reminding them that the reason you're interrupting is because there are others who would like to speak and deserve a turn. Reminding the talkers through a 1-on-1 of the procedures and why they're important -- keeping group unity and ironing out disagreements which could lead to a malfunctioning group -- is a good precursor to productive meetings. Remind people that meetings should be as short as possible so that we can all get on with our lives and get over the boring,&nbsp;grueling, but necessary part of organizing.<br /><br />Talkers are great in scenarios that aren't directed towards group decision making or ensuring that people's feelings aren't hurt. In my experience, talkers are great speakers, agitators, media relations people, and intellectual defenders of the more timid in the face of an aggressive talker who may be against your side. Talkers are also talkers because, usually, they're passionate, so talkers are loyal. They are a great asset to any grass roots organizing. The persona just needs to be reminded, from time to time, that others need to be able to talk too, and they can be reminded through the importance of following procedures when group consensus is trying to be achieved.<br /><br />Dictators, on the other hand, I've had less luck with. Perhaps there's a good way to address dictators. So far, in my experience -- though the dictators are passionate -- their attitude towards others tends to drive people away. They expect people to follow their orders, and are upset when they don't. Usually dictators, again in my experience, are just inexperienced organizers. They're passionate, they've dreamed many good dreams, they want to reach the end-goal, but they haven't had much experience in actually organizing people on the ground without any authority to back them.<br /><br />So far the best thing I've been able to do with dictators is to push them out of the group. They're upset, which isn't good, but dictators ruin collective group dynamics and the possibility of growing your group or its good repute in the community to be worth it. I've tried to show dictators what it takes to be a good organizer -- being open to criticism, not taking criticism personally, attempting to blend people's desires into a super-tactic/objective that is conducive to what you're organizing on, politeness, being willing to work before asking others to do so, working with people's schedules, being understanding of people's lives, trying to work with a quid pro quo attitude towards those with resources that could help your cause but aren't necessarily aligned with the cause -- but for the most part, the whole "working with others" aspect of organizing doesn't suit the dictator's personality as much. And without other people, you're not bound to get much done.<br /><br />So, unless you're particularly awesome with working with people -- and I consider myself to be decent -- I'd suggest politely telling the dictator that they can play well with others and showing them what that entails, but tell them that the dictator attitude -- specified as a person telling others what to do and expecting others to do those things without placing work into the project and without considering their needs -- needs to go, or they do.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-24375366273086727142012-10-06T15:26:00.002-07:002012-10-06T15:26:22.626-07:00Step One of grassroots organizingThere are a large number of options available to the would-be organizer. The difficulty in starting your own grass roots group doesn't come from a lack of options or a lack of issues -- or even a lack of possible support from some kind of larger group which would be sympathetic to your efforts -- but the place where the would-be organizer gets caught, I think, is in the starting and in the continuing. This post will be about the starting.<br /><br />As I mentioned before in Organizer Pedagogy, what you choose to do should be tailored to your local conditions. But that's not a helpful way of stating things when you don't have a teacher on hand to get started. &nbsp;What counts as "local conditions"? In what way do they matter? How does that help you choose correctly? I think it important to highlight that your local conditions make it difficult to give advice on where to start. But the lesson to take from this, I think, is to be open to changing your plans as you collect people together. They likely have good points, and have things to teach you. An organizer collects ideas from people and willingly implements them, and tries to find ways to make groups work together in spite of their apparent disagreements. They don't have a grand vision to impose on others (even if you do have a grand vision or goal which drives you, you have to be open to other's grand visions and goals, and move with the tactics proposed)<br /><br />However, these are good rules to think of after having started, and once you're in the process of moving towards goals. In the beginning you need structure. You need a plan. You need an idea. And, you can't impose that idea on others. You can only tell people the idea and look for people that think -- to some extent -- that it's a decent idea.<br /><br />This is step 1: Forming a core group.<br /><br />A core group is a group of people that care about an issue -- local or national -- and will be willing to follow through in setting up events. You'll find many people that agree with your idea. You won't find as many people -- perhaps very few out of those who do agree, in fact -- who are also willing to follow through in doing. Ideas always sound cool. Work is. . . well, work. And the work is what you need a core group for -- the core group brings new ideas, allows you to distribute out tasks, and allows you to pool resources and contacts to get things done.<br /><br />What does a core group do?<br /><br />A core group sets up community events. For example, suppose you want to educate people on the poor in your community so that they'll get together for a food drive. For that, you'll need fliers to tell people about the event, a speaker who can educate those who show up, and a list of people who promise to bring food to such and such a place as well as to ask others in their respective circles to bring food to the drive. For that you'll need a date, a time, and a place. You'll need to secure that place at that time by talking to the person who owns the place and securing permission. Do this by showing the owner your flier which you'll be passing out, and explaining the goal of your food drive as well as the problem that the food drive is meant to address. &nbsp;Once you have the owner's permission, begin fliering in the neighborhood where people tend to congregate (city halls, churches, schools, public events, parks). Do this by telling the person you meet in the street that they now have a flier. I always say, in a friendly tone, "Here, have a flier!" It's better to say this than to ask, because you don't get as much out when you ask questions. Then, have the event, and have a location where people can bring food, and after the fact let people who donated know how much food you gathered and how its helping out the hungry.<br /><br />Any of these tasks -- from talking to the owner, to fliering, to speaking at the meeting, to making the flier -- can be distributed out through your core group. That way you're not the only one doing the work, and don't get burned out, and you have input from multiple sources on how it will be carried out (usually making it better), and making it so your resources aren't the only ones going into the project.<br /><br />That's what a core group is for. That, and drawing strength from one another so that the things you're doing -- when they seem hopeless and worthless and not effective (and there will always be times when you feel this way -- will continue to be done. Burnout is a serious problem. And, it's good to have friends in doing these things so that you can combat burnout.<br /><br />The strengths of a core group make forming a core group the first step of community/grass roots organizing. Find responsible friends who care about the issue, and meet once a week to discuss what you can do, whose going to do what, and holding each other accountable for the doing.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-90239411304337424372012-10-02T08:37:00.003-07:002012-10-02T08:37:27.393-07:00Wichita City Hall SpeechToday I spoke to Wichita's city council on possible policy changes they could implement to address the problem of police violence in the city. The text is as follows:<br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal">The city of Wichita has a problem with police violence. I say that the city has a problem because these are not isolated incidents, the result of a few “bad eggs”. We have stood outside of city hall to inform the public of the most egregious signs of this problem – the five killings of the past year – and in the process of informing the public, I and others have been told stories of their interactions with the police. In many situations the police act with undue aggression: Many officers draw weapons when they aren’t needed. They fire upon suspects unnecessarily. Many officers train that fire for center mass, rather than aiming for the legs or utilizing their tasers. They act in the capacity of soldiers rather than in the capacity of peace keepers. And then, based upon our interaction with the local government and the police department, the police do what they can to cover up their mistakes and preserve their integrity. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As of right now that integrity is lost. Those who interact with the police, or who have been paying attention to the unfolding of the past years shootings no longer trust the police department. This is bad for the community and for the police department – especially the good police in the police department. If this breach of trust continues we can predict a perpetual tug-of-war which will continue to degrade police and community relations to a point where it won’t matter if a given police officer is actually a good officer. The fact that he wears a badge will be enough to distrust him or her. This mentality must be combatted. The current situation in Anaheim, California should be evidence enough to show why this is an unhealthy attitude that needs to be addressed. &nbsp;The city can address this attitude through three actions which are easily accomplished by this city council. When I previously spoke to you, Mayor Carl Brewer, I was directed towards the law department. From there, I received an email which read:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“…<span style="background: white;">our office generally does not initiate code changes. Most requests for new code provisions or amendments to existing code provisions comes from city staff, are based on changes to state statutes made by the Kansas Legislature or are at the direction of the City Council. I would suggest that you contact the City Clerk to get on the public agenda to discuss your proposed </span><span class="il"><span style="background: #FFFFCC;">ordinance</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="background: white;">ideas with the Council.&nbsp; If the Council desires to pursue your suggestions, they can direct our office to do so”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Based on this response I believe that I am addressing – and was addressing – the appropriate authority. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal">I don’t have the time to go into specifics. So what follows is a general outline of the three actions I propose.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">First, the city council needs to move to ensure </span>justice for the victims and their families,&nbsp; <span style="background: white;">The families deserve stricter judiciary proceedings than the review given by our DA. Nola Foulston has not found a single police officer guilty of excessive force in her service.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Second, the city council needs to </span>implement policy changes which will de-incentivize the use of lethal force by police officers.<span style="background: white;"> There are times and places where violence is necessitated by the police. But the police, as of now, are using lethal force excessively. Companies, such as Cessna, use a review process when things go wrong and put people on leave without pay to investigate the incident. We need to somehow implement this into the WPD’s policies, or into the city ordinances, for police officers which utilize lethal force to give them an incentive to use non-lethal force.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Lastly, </span>the city council should move to subject police actions to community review by<span style="background: white;"> an independent, community-based review board with subpoena powers. In the event of a shooting that review board should meet immediately. The board should not be appointed by City Manager Layton’s office because the community needs to be able to trust the review board. The board should have subpoena power to ensure that information on a given shooting isn’t solely controlled by the police department. Other cities, such as Las Vegas, have a board with subpoena power which reviews complaints and attempts to represent the people’s concerns with the cities policing powers. Having this board outside of the cities appointment would ensure that information released on questionable cases is more balanced, and that people could trust that board to carry out its tasks.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal">I urge this city council to consider these three actions, and move – within your capacities – to implement them to re-establish trust between the people and the police, and help prevent these tragedies in the future. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></div>FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-14642866408444733622012-09-29T21:41:00.001-07:002012-09-29T21:41:12.887-07:00Organizer PedagogyIn the past year I have been involved in the Occupy movement in Kansas. Right now we're working on a local police problem, but one which seems to have analogues across the United States. It's more serious than I initially thought I'd be involved in, and I know that without my fellow activists/organizers and the experience of organizing over the past year I'd be in over my head. Heck, I feel that I'm in over my head now, but that positive things are coming out of our work.<br /><br />I've been a community organizer for awhile, now. I've always started groups and interacted with my local&nbsp;bureaucracies. I learned some on my own, but the previous year has gotten me in contact with activist/organizers of many stripes and depths of experience.<br /><br />Being of a scientific bent, a thought that's been with me during this time of learning is: There needs to be more theory on this stuff!<br /><br />Sure, there's some. But it's treated with too much respect. And, on the converse side of things, pomo philosophy has inundated activist culture to a point where a number of organizers are hesitant to make generalized statements. Its understandable why, I think this is a healthy attitude -- especially in addressing problems of race, gender, and class which largely depend upon personal experience and social institutions, which aren't as amenable to generalized statements or scientific inquiry. (I'm far from anti-pomo). &nbsp;But I feel that there needs to also be *some* kind of generalized statements so that we can pass on what we've learned from organizing to other potential activist/organizers that aren't around us.<br /><br />That's basically the whole point of theory: to pass on refined and useful beliefs to others, so that they aren't stuck re-inventing the wheel.<br /><br />While I don't think that I'm "top notch" in community organizing, I feel that I've learned a thing or two which is worth sharing with those who may be interested in doing some of the same, even if on a different issue. I think that community organizing is important for addressing many social problems, regardless of our particular situation in regards to work/class/politics/whatever, and that its the sort of thing that isn't taught because it has no economic benefit or classical basis.<br /><br />But it needs to be taught.<br /><br />I can understand the hesitancy to make generalized statements about community organizing. A lot of the decisions made at the ground level are dependent upon the circumstances one finds oneself in as well as the people you're working with, and you don't want to be paternalistic towards other localities or at fault for screwing up a campaign you're not actually involved in. The best way to teach an organizer is "on the job". The best way to learn how to make decisions is with people who have made more heuristically driven decisions.<br /><br />But I can't help but think that I would have been better off starting with some kind of advice. I didn't even know, when I started organizing, that what I was doing was called "organizing". I just did what I could to effect change in the world on things I cared about. Had I known what I now know, even if the circumstances were different and the model of organizing had to be changed to meet those circumstances, I would have been much more effective.<br /><br />There needs to be some kind of balance, I think. We can emphasize the need to pay attention to local circumstances and having to make judgment calls on the basis of a crazy network of heuristics that have little to do with whether something is true or the best solution to a given situation, while simultaneously passing on knowledge we've gleaned to help others in their organizing efforts.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-39582262832700103552012-09-22T13:11:00.000-07:002012-09-22T13:12:19.170-07:00Organize, organize, organize...I think I'm going to reboot this blog. The title is still appropriate, though I'm no longer really in the science field. I'm currently unemployed, looking for work, after an attempt at unionizing went wrong. It was a great learning experience in terms of labor organizing, but being inexperienced I made mistakes and lost legal protection. Cest la vie.<br /><br />I've remained active in the Occupy movement/organization/whateveritis. That's an ongoing debate that I don't participate in as much, because we're still working on stuff in our particular chapter. I've seen other occupations in small and similar locations who are likewise working on stuff in their localities. Some are totally disorganized, some are moving into specific areas, some are kicking ass.<br /><br />I hope to keep the movement rolling. That's part of why I'm rebooting this blog. Economic justice is an issue dear to me, which is why I became involved in labor organizing, and no movement/organization/whateveritis has so clearly addressed income inequality than the Occupy movement/organization/whateveritis has.<br /><br />Practically speaking, we're currently trying to build coalitions in our community to find allies and bring people in. I think Kansas organizing can benefit from the Occupy movement's principles as a way of shifting policy and culture because it provides a perfect umbrella within which these small, disparate, outnumbered groups can work under. To do that, we've started going to other people's meetings and also picked up issues that are effecting our community.<br /><br />Long-term-wise, I've been preaching a three part plan: 1. Build Worker Coops so we can have resources, 2. Build unions to restart the labor movement in the US, which is practically inexistent and directly addresses the problem of economic inequality, 3. Create live-in collectives to keep activists in contact, working together, and bills down so our resources go further.<br /><br />I'm always open to more ideas, though. And, since this *is* a reboot post, I think I'll try to keep it at that. You can also follow me on twitter @HuxleyDick, where I'll prolly post more. But I'll try to get back onto my 1/week schedule here.<br /><br />I know this started as a science blog, but now I'm experimenting elsewhere. And, if you've organized within Occupy, you know we've made mistakes along the way. So, it kind of fits in a funny way. And, heck, I still think science is important, so maybe this'll be a way of getting some of those old posts read by people who don't know science as well. ;)FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-45389926957581950942011-11-21T05:24:00.001-08:002011-11-21T05:30:00.274-08:00OccuBusI've been participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement over the past two months. It's been exciting and worthwhile. In case you're wondering "What is the movement about?" or "What is the movement saying?", I'd like to lay that out in a couple of short sentences.<br /><br />OWS's central message is that money has taken over the government, and that shouldn't be the case. We should be more democratic than oligarchic. Just because you're rich your voice shouldn't carry more weight.<br /><br />While there are a host of other causes floating about, and there's also a general surge of diverse political opinion and discussion (something I've relished over these past two months), that's the central message that everyone -- from anarchists, socialists, progressives, Democrats, libertarians, Republicans, and so on -- agrees on.<br /><br />That being said, our local chapter of this movement is trying to buy a bus. But we're broke. There are a lot of good reasons to own a bus, all central to the ideals of the occupy movement, which revolve around 1) presence of our movement, 2) mobilization of the occupiers to important areas, and 3) ability to carry around supplies and people to actions. If you have a little extra and like the idea of a group of spirited activists driving around doing community service and demonstrating against corruption in the government, then this is the group to donate to.<br /><br />See us at www.occubus.org<br /><br /><br />Naturally, it's also just fun to give an update on life and what's come out of the Wichita chapter of the occupy movement, so if you don't have money, at least tell me if you think this is a cool idea or not.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-83784001292279285162011-11-08T15:57:00.000-08:002011-11-08T16:12:54.750-08:00A life updateThe previous month I've been busy with the local section of the "Occupy..." movement. Things seem to be starting to branch into definite groups with select progressive goals, at least by my lights. We'll see how these goals carry on. Hopefully well.<br /><br />In either case, though, the movement has provided some excellent practical lessons on the art of organizing people. I've also gotten in contact with several local activists that I hadn't known before, which is nice.<br /><br />Some take-away lessons:<br /><br />1. Anarchy isn't all bad. While I agreed with the overall message, the anarchic approach had me nervous. But benefits to the anarchic approach kept on cropping up, especially with respect to either a) convincing people to come out, or b) responding to those who weren't going to come out anyways. While order has progressively been built up, and fractions have resulted from that order, I found the anarchic approach more refreshing than I had initially anticipated.<br /><br />2. The consistent application of principles is more important than overtly emotional appeals, or passionate justifications. There's nothing wrong with these, of course, but the problem with the latter is that they make it difficult to organize if these are your sole motivations, justifications, or arguments. These things in conjunction I think are best, but one needs to be able to consistently make appeals to the means and ends they're going to use in order to bring about order.<br /><br />3. Protest is a perfectly good reason to organize! You don't need a super-involved project, such as a newspaper, political party, platform, or other event. You can organize people around something as simple as handing out flyers, holding signs, or simply talking to people on the streets. The thing missing isn't that there isn't something to do, but that people are largely socially uncertain in unfamiliar settings. This asociality is a larger barrier to organizing than the need for a project. (I had always thought that the project was important, but really now I think having similar-ish goals and someone with a little social gusto and willingness to listen is probably enough to get people out)<br /><br />4. Though anarchy isn't all bad, I have recieved confirmation on my hypothesis that in order to get things done, you need some kind of social rules at play. Anarchy can provide these, understood in the right way. But a stricter order, IMV, would still be nice. I don't mind hierarchy. It seems a necessary feature of society. I only mind it when the leaders are ignoble.<br /><br />5. There are a lot more left-leaning people in Kansas than I had presumed.<br /><br />6. If you schedule a protest, make sure you have some musicians. People get bored, and this is usually a good source of morale.<br /><br />7. Literature is important. The importance of street literature isn't a thesis-level writing, but simple bullet points which get your message across. Having presence is the important aspect.<br /><br /><br /><br />Other than that, I've tried to organize a union at work but to no avail. People think it sounds good-ish, but not good enough to actually do anything about it. So I've taken the liberty of mentioning unionization every time someone complains about work. I'm probably hated by everyone. ;)<br /><br />Lastly, I'm considering looking at different graduate programs from chemistry. In particular, I'm considering going to some softer sciences because they're more interesting and complex. Either that, or philosophy. If I have the guts to bite the bullet and try to do philosophy of science as an occupation. (And I don't know what the heck people mean by the golden rays of industry in science. Industry is boring as fuck. And, they fuck you over like any other industry -- academic or otherwise -- would. Seems to me that it's pretty much just another job: you hate it, but heck, it pays the bills, and you have time off to do things you like)FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-27450720507509260562011-07-30T10:08:00.000-07:002011-07-30T10:11:30.299-07:00Free Philosophy journal!So I was poking around looking for stuff on ordinary language philosophy, and I came across <a href="http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/">http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/</a> which is an online bi-annual philosophy journal which publishes their work for free. Very cool!FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-68469669821659676832011-07-21T17:54:00.001-07:002011-07-21T18:04:09.254-07:00Chemistry UnionAt the new job I work at I often hear complaints about wages, treatment, and working conditions. The Chemistry field looks precarious, at times. While this field is by no means the worst field to work within, I have taken to mentioning the benefits of unionism where I work to other workers.<br /><br />Politics tends to be a "no-no" topic, from what I can tell about the atmosphere so this makes it somewhat difficult to broach. But I don't think a Chemists union would have to restrict itself to a single plant, or a single company, and in fact I think would be better if it did not restrict itself to a plant or company. In a sense Chemists already have a professional organization to help workers keep in touch with the chemistry field -- the ACS (though that only applies to Americans). But this is a wholly unbalanced relationship. It keeps a pool of ready and willing workers in contact with companies who may pick and choose, but we don't have bargaining rights outside of our resumes and references. I think that the chemistry employees would benefit greatly by forming a union -- and not just a union which is embedded within a given company, but a union formed by and operated by the workers themselves. This would give us, as employees, bargaining power in the labor market of chemistry. This is beneficial because it would aid us in bringing more stability to our jobs so that we can pursue the things in life that are worthwhile outside of work, such as family, projects, politics, and so forth. Further, it would make the working field equatable, as currently we are all disjointed which is beneficial only to those with collective bargaining power: our employers.<br /><br />But it's a hard sell. I live in a conservative state, and conservative values tend to weigh against unionism on the basis of principle, and on the basis of fear. I mention fear because when I mentione unionizing, the responses are not of the sort, "I do not believe..." but "Such activities couldn't succeed", so I think there's at least some motivational fear which stops unionism from working. The sad thing is that rural, conservative states would benefit most from unionism. They tend to be the poorest!FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-12179960150916371172011-06-16T15:26:00.000-07:002011-06-16T15:31:27.301-07:00Job!While I may not have been accepted by any universities for graduate programs, I have been hired on as a quality control chemist right out of college. This is, more or less, a good thing. So far everyone is dorky, which means we get along, and while I've had to read a bajillion and have a Megabajillion more little papers and procedures to read, I'll actually be doing chemistry to support myself. This should include, in the main, wet lab techniques and HPLC. This also means that I'll have the opportunity to <em>really</em> hone my lab skills to perfection, including lab notebook keeping techniques. While I'm good with theory and have an ability to communicate complex ideas, I've always been a little. . . disorganized. Here, that is not an option, and since I like the idea of remaining employed, I'll actually work on that rather than simply say, "I should, but haven't yet"<br /><br />Also, they have an R&amp;D department in house, so there's opportunity to move into research, eventually. Great news!FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-69532980537119377352011-06-08T09:20:00.000-07:002011-06-08T10:51:09.338-07:00My Diagram of Kant's mind<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FrOus-PfIPk/Te-hqfZ0LAI/AAAAAAAAAGM/89CHXW3hp08/s1600/Diagram%2Bof%2BReason.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FrOus-PfIPk/Te-hqfZ0LAI/AAAAAAAAAGM/89CHXW3hp08/s320/Diagram%2Bof%2BReason.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5615885011710651394" border="0" /></a><br />I'm placing this here mostly so that I may share it with others in an online reading group I'm participating in. But, hey, if you like this sort of thing, maybe you'll get a kick out of it. It can be read as a "flow of information" diagram, where the stuff on the right has information flowing in, and hte stuff on the left is information flowing inward as well, but from some high-falutin' seat of rockem'-sockem thought, and the stuff we experience is right in the middle where it says "The Categories, temporalized" -- or the Schema.<br /><br /><br />EDIT: And it looks like I'll need another diagram for his theory of perception, so I'm putting that here too.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ugw3wb4b7mo/Te-2a93jcoI/AAAAAAAAAGU/JV0IyAoGM-0/s1600/Kant%2527s%2BTheory%2Bof%2BPerception.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ugw3wb4b7mo/Te-2a93jcoI/AAAAAAAAAGU/JV0IyAoGM-0/s320/Kant%2527s%2BTheory%2Bof%2BPerception.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5615907834754724482" border="0" /></a>FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-86561321617741218132011-05-06T18:00:00.000-07:002011-05-06T18:11:24.744-07:00"We"-IntentionalityRecently I've been taken with the notion of "we"-intentionality. I'm not sure if it's the greatest solution just yet, but it's a cool concept that helps explain at least one thing -- why people say "we" when they address an audience.<br /><br />First, intentionality. Intentionality is that feature of our minds that "refers", or has aboutness. To explain this: Suppose your imagine a picture of your car. The "aboutness", or that which refers your thought to your car is the intentionality of that thought. This would be an example of "I"-intentionality -- you're talking about yourself and yourself only in thinking about your car. "We"-intentionality would be something like "We believe that vegetables are good for you". The "we" would mean that you and others that you are a part of believe. That which allows you all to believe together is "we"-intentionality. It's a little weird to think in these terms, at first, because we're used to thinking of thoughts as "private". But think about a close friend or lover you've had. Usually people can tell if something is wrong with them, or predict what they're going to say next if the friends know each other enough. I know that I've had this experience. I would say that this is an instance of "we"-intentionality: It's actually not too uncommon to know what peers in an organization, or even other people within a given community that only passingly know each other think and feel. Surely we can be mistaken, and corrected, but we can also be correct, so I'd say that this is at least a proof of concept of "we"-intentionality.<br /><br />What does this explain? Well, I've noticed that in conversation when sharing beliefs or explaining concepts to a group of people, the pronoun "we" is often used. A person may jeer if they disagree, "Are you two people?" -- but the language can also float by without notice. This would be an instance of correctly inferring that "we"-intentionality applies in that situation. In either instance, however, "we"-intentionality explains a feature of communication: it is an act of agreeing with one another, or checking to see if we agree with each other (feel free to interject, here ;) ). By saying "We think..." it brings attention to the fact that agreement is needed in this instance for an argument to continue, or it checks to see if a group is indeed still in line with one another. No "royal perspective" is no longer necessary to explain why people say "we" when speaking to others -- we have "we"-intentionality.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-70017080540280197522011-04-30T17:24:00.000-07:002011-04-30T17:30:29.459-07:00Placing Consciousness in a Biological Context<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="&#45;-"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:-.05pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="&#45;-"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:-.05pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal">In biology, I think that form is ontologically prior to function. By this I mean that a change in form implies a change in function, but that a change in function does not imply a change in form. By form I mean phenotype. So, a proper biological ontology would be:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Genotype -- Phenotype -- Function</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Phenotypic expression is causally determined by environmental constrains on the ability to reproduce genotypes to the next generation. Natural selection, in this case, is the hard-stop of genotype reproduction -- those who do not pass their information on will stop passing their information on. As such, environment is actually wider than natural selection, and natural selection only plays a role at the level of genotype. Natural drift would also fall in at the level of genotype. Sexual selection, however, would be ontologically separate from natural selection because it is a selection for phenotypes which then causes a selection for some genotypes. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">In most biological species function can only be changed by phenotype, and phenotype by the three preceding mechanisms.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">"Consciousness" is a separate evolutionary mechanism which operates on function in the limits of phenotypic expression -- or in some extreme cases, such as cloning, acts on genotypic expression. As a mechanism of evolution, it operates in the realm of function – the brain runs on functions and this mechanism of evolution is a function of genotypic reproduction and selection. This isn’t to say that consciousness isn’t more than this – this would just be the way one could explain consciousness in a biological context. More detailed explanations of consciousness would supervene on this general sketch.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I think this ontology accounts for the biological nature of consciousness, as well as its special place in nature while staying in the bounds of an ontological naturalism. These would be the reasons for adopting it.<a name="_GoBack"></a></p> <a name="_GoBack"></a>FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-22786220426082996922011-04-25T15:08:00.000-07:002011-04-25T18:17:03.302-07:00A quick and unconsidered take on foundationalism<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 370px; height: 684px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><col style="width: 64pt;" width="85"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="5" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="7" style="height: 15pt; width: 304pt;" height="20" width="405">According to OxfordDictionaries.com on April 25, 2011, there exists in the English language…</td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Total Words:</td> <td class="xl63" align="right">171,476</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Nouns:</td> <td align="right">85738</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Adjectives:</td> <td align="right">42869</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="4" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Suppose the Sentence "'noun' is 'adjective'"</td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td></tr><tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="7" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Then for each noun, there are 42869 possible sentences</td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="7" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Given this, there are 85,738 x 42,869 possible sentences of this form, giving some<span style=""> </span></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="7" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">leeway for creative embellishments, and the fact that we aren't counting verbs</td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="3" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">or modifiers or articles etc etc.</td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="2" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">This amounts to…</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" align="right" height="20">3675502322</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20">or…</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 15pt;" align="right" height="20">3.676E+09</td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="4" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">About 3.6 billion sentences of this form</td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="7" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Now compare the number of sentences which we use to describe<br />the world<br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="6" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">This, I believe, gives a strong reason to believe that ….</td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td colspan="3" style="">1) Our perceptions are similar</td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td colspan="5" style="">2) Our world is structured by us</td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="7" style="height: 15pt;" height="20">Which implies, in a metaphorical sense, that empiricists and rationalists are both wrong.<br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td colspan="6" style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20">THE END!</td> <td>lulz<br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 15pt;" height="20"> <td style="height: 15pt;" height="20"><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td><br /></td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td><td><br /></td> <td><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /></td> </tr> </tbody></table>FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-28336024992461402011-04-17T15:31:00.000-07:002011-04-17T15:45:30.843-07:00ExpertsSome time ago I had posited that a good problem to solve in the philosophy of science would be to answer, "How should we treat experts?" The problem arises because one doesn't want to just take a person's word on the truth of some claim, yet there are disciplines in modern society which require a a restrictive amount of time to become "expert" in -- and therefore one must rely upon the truth claims of others in certain domains. This may not seem to be a problem, but suppose the recent bank scandal: The experts were the bankers, and they used their expertise to gain. As such, the trust which "expert" status was broached. Even more than this "expert" status is always potentially abusive, not only socially but also personally. The solution to the problem should treat this: How does one minimize potential abuse while still having experts in a given domain, a thing which surely is useful?<br /><br />A few possible solutions:<br />1. Remove expertise status. No expertise status, no problem of experts. This has some potentially undesirable consequences, however, as we surely enjoy our brain surgeons to be trained as brain surgeons before doing brain surgery. This solution is still viable in some sense, however, because we could restrict expert status to a few occupations which we deem as acceptable (Doctor, Lawyer, Scientist for example) This would minimize the potential for abuse. However, this is already largely done on a social level, so there isn't much of a problem being solved here.<br /><br />2. Ethics: If we were all ethical, then there wouldn't be abuse of expertise status. This would require a certain level of trust between members in a society which would be earned by our acting in proper ways. This is an ideal solution. By ideal I mean, totally impractical in every way because we don't take ethics terribly seriously on a social-wide level. It's a "personal" thing. So to implement this solution we would first have to start revising what our social ethics amounts to, which would likely push aside some of our other social values.<br /><br />3. Trust Experts: This is a common solution to the problem. The value of experts is held above the potential for abuse to the point that we all agree to trust experts despite this potential for abuse.<br /><br />4. I have a possible rule that might be adopted, and I would think of this as a sort of middle path between 2 and 3. It would be "Require experts to be able to teach". This indicates that when an expert makes a claim, a non-expert is allowed to question that claim. Naturally there are good and bad ways of going about this. If a non-expert states "Well, fuck you buddy!" this will likely not facilitate proper or positive communication between either party. Instead, he could state something along the lines of, "I do not believe you. Could you explain yourself further?" This would require something of a social change, as well -- that we be socially allowed to civilly disagree, even on potentially hostile topics. This would require a form of training which would help persons to express their disagreements in a succinct and communicable manner. The best discipline for this, I feel, is philosophy. So, solution 4 really boils down to not just a rule, but a change in our education by requiring philosophy be learned by everyone in High School. However, it does have the advantage of engendering trust between persons as they come to understand one anothers' position more, and thereby allowing experts to exist, while placing them subject to the possibility of a willing "student" asking questions.<br /><br /><br />It's likely apparent which solution I prefer.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-45750943544469983772011-02-24T19:05:00.000-08:002011-02-24T19:13:58.855-08:00IncommensurabilityIncommensurability is the thesis that world-views which scientific practice has posed throughout the ages are fundamentally different, or not comparable. An example often used a comparison between Einsteinian, Newtonian, and Quantum physics. Newton stated that mass is an entity separate from energy. Einstein's physics posits that mass is a manifestation of energy -- a possible property for energy to take on. Quantum physics, contra both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, posits (in its first form, at least) that causality is a probabilistic construct, instead of an infinitely deterministic construct.<br /><br />Usually the incommensurabile thesis is defended by pointing out dramatic changes between scientific systems. Naturally there is wiggle room for what constitutes "dramatic". Generally I take this to mean that the ontological construct of science has changed. So, we have an atomic theory, for instance, and it would not change the ontological structure of chemistry to posit another atom, or another molecule, or even a new way of bonding. There exists atoms and bonds. However, were we to posit that the universe is not composed of atoms, but waves of energy and waves of energy only, and that the atoms we reference are tools in the same sense that a meter is a tool (whereas "length" would be the ontic unit of a meter), then we'd have an instance of incommensurability. " "The universe is atoms and only atoms" and "The universe is energy waves and only energy waves" "can not be true. You have to choose one or the other, or make an adjustment that allows for both.<br /><br />In playing with the incommensurability thesis, I broke open my Aristotle and wrote the following thought experiment where I interpreted spectroscopic data using Aristotle's theories.<br /><br />Spectroscopic analysis would be conceived of in an entirely different way within the Aristotelian framework. Nature abhors a void so there aren't any atoms, and... (From Book II of <span style="font-style: italic;">De Anima</span>)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"...to explain what light is.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Now there clearly is something which is transparent, and by 'transparent' I mean what is visible, and yet not visible in itself, but rather owing its visibility to the colour of something else; of this character are air, water, and many solid bodies. Neither air nor water is transparent because it is air or water; they are transparent because each of them has contained in it a certain substance which is the same in both and is also found in the eternal body which constitutes the uppermost shell of the physical Cosmos. Of this substance light is the activity-the activity of what is transparent so far forth as it has in it the determinate power of becoming transparent; where this power is present, there is also the potentiality of the contrary, viz. darkness. Light is as it were the proper colour of what is transparent, and exists whenever the potentially transparent is excited to actuality by the influence of fire or something resembling 'the uppermost body'; for fire too contains something which is one and the same with the substance in question. "</span><br /><br />So, the differences one can obtain from a spectroscope could be explained by this transparent substance in activity with different proportionate mixtures of the elements, which is something Aristotle references often in explaining why different things are what they are (I'm just taking a guess here. But I don't think it's fair to infer, using Aristotle's work in a scientific manner, that reference to quantum energy states modeled by operator algebra explains lines on a given spectroscopic measurement). But, even more importantly, this would be the <i>mere</i> material cause, reflecting a samples potentiality. The actuality could only be garnered from what that material would be used for. Suppose it is a medicine. The ratio of elements would be the potential within the substance, and the shape of the sample at the time of the spectroscope would be during its coming-to-be. For the end of medicine is getting well, and when it is used would be its actuality. (I'm pulling from ideas in Aristotle's <span style="font-style: italic;">Physics</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Metaphysics</span> as well, here)<br /><br /><br />In using Aristotle, while I can find a common referent, and I even think that modern theories are better with respect to truth-value, one can come to understand the incommensurability thesis best, I think. This is because science works by inferring to the best explanation within a certain explanatory framework, and inferences, contra arguments, are actions. It's in the use of science that one understands incommensurability best, and not the "logic" of science.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-8377191960310946522011-02-15T10:26:00.000-08:002011-02-15T10:54:18.685-08:00Tractatus Logico-PhilosophicusI have been re-engaging Wittgenstein's <span style="font-style: italic;">Tractatus logico-philosophicus</span>. It is one of the most difficult books I've read, and now reread, and even translated to get a bearing on my reading. With the most difficult thinkers I engage, I enjoy stopping in the middle of my writing and drawing a diagram of the argument/metaphysic in order to have a visual representation of the argument as I go along that I can modify, reconnect, and have at the end to remind myself of key points. The list of thinkers that had been on that list is now expanded by one, and Wittgenstein's diagram is the messiest version (though Kant is still the one that has forced me to start from scratch more than any other).<br /><br />Last night I believe I obtained an important key to understanding this work: It ought to be read as a lament. The book claims to have solved all the problems of philosophy in its introduction, and to claim that the size of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tractatus</span> shows how insignificant these problems are. And so he begins:<br /><br />1. The World is everything that is the case<br /><br />which lays a foundation, of sorts, upon which the Tractatus digs into. I think it important to understand this as a digging downward, because the emotional feel of this work is best understood as a negative plot: the sharpness of this descent can first be sharply felt within section 3. Section 2 begins to outlay the connection between "the case", "objects", "facts", "atomic facts/states of affairs", and other common-place things which are talked of "in the world".<br /><br />In 3 one can feel the descent because this is where one understands in what way we understand the world. 4 displays how thinking is connected with itself, and this is why the serious logic begins here. The outline of propositions is significantly different from the outline of atomic facts and objects. We can only mention atomic facts and objects, as we can only mention atomic propositions and their truth values. 5 shows how truth values are derived. I think the nadir occurs around proposition 5.5, but I'm being somewhat arbitrary about that. That I have a feeling for this text, now, is a significant leap forward in understanding it. I can not explain all of the text, but I have an idea of its predominant thrust.<br /><br />The end of 5, right before 6, signifies an upward slope. But it isn't a hopeful upward slope. It's the beginning of building back upwards from the hole that has been dug into the foundations lain in the beginning.<br /><br /><br />6 begins to show in what way this digging and explicating, while part of what philosophy has been doing, doesn't answer what philosophy asks -- the world is understandable, but the whole is tautologous. It places mathematics and natural science in a "place" within understanding, and reflects that while some persons think these things are ultimately true that this is a sort of superstition. Science, causality, and so on is logical, and all we can know is logic. And, even more than that, I think a very important proposition for understanding the catharsis/melancholy of the ending is:<br /><br />6.4 All propositions are of equal value.<br /><br />From this it follows that the important questions, important to Witty at least, can not be answered. They have no sense. Or that this is the answer to the important questions: That the question, having no answer, can't even be sensibly formulated -- and so the secret to immortality and happiness lies not in philosophical speculation, but in a mental nowness: Which is entirely unsatisfying.<br /><br />This is why I think one needs to read Wittgenstein's "correct method" as sort of tongue-in-cheek preperation for his final proposition. If "correct philosophy" consists in correcting the errors of metaphysical speculation, and others feel that they are not then learning philosophy, then how is philosophy philosophy? Why is it that philosophy is, correctly done, unphilosophical?<br /><br />Naturally the ending is a bit enigmatic, but I think the final proposition in 6 can be understood in that all what has been said is senseless -- in Wittgenstein's specific way of using this word. The outline that the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tractatus</span> is has no reference. As the entire thing does not refer to "the case", and one finds that out by the time they begin to build "the world" back into a whole from which it has been disassembled, there can't actually be a sense to any of these propositions. However, if we, after having crawled through, on, and over these propositions, one would be wise, having reached the limit of our world at the barrier of language, to throw the ladder down. What has been taken apart is no longer needed -- it is senseless, and with that understanding of senselessness, the world is made right.<br /><br />However, There is proposition 7. I get the feeling that Wittgenstein did not take his own advice. He did not "see the world right". The entire book is a detailed struggle to understand ethics and related philosophical problems, and it ends in failure. It's horribly dissapointing, and with 7 we see that Wittgenstein will not give up that chase -- he will simply remain silent, and melancholy.<br /><br /><br />Man, I'm probably going to reread the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tractatus</span>, as I'm not entirely certain on what everything in it means -- but the effort I've spent in reading and rereading this book has been well worth it. Once I seemed to "Get it"... it was an absolutely incredible feeling.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-27976751060313066172011-01-30T13:27:00.000-08:002011-01-30T14:09:55.837-08:00Egypt is an InspirationI've been watching Al-Jazeera to catch up on the Egyptian uprising <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/">link</a><br /><br /><br />The images are an amazing sight to behold because they're of regular men and women standing up in protest to change their government. They're persons that want freedom. They're an example of how people can bond together to affect political change, and it is change of this nature that the United States could benefit from. They want democracy. I am not against democracy. But our politics do not account for the political nature of economics, and as economic power becomes intertwined in political power this is a poor interpretive stance. The economic is the political. With this message in mind, everyday persons in the United States could bind together in a general union ran by workers. Those who stock shelves, wait tables, and tend bars could have a political voice. At present there is no labor-left party within the United States, not one with power. But there could be one. The images of Egypt, of regular persons wanting freedom for themselves, give examples of how regular persons can stand up against the social constructs to make a better tomorrow. It makes one think that political struggle isn't an entirely depressing affair.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-50244491743514950902011-01-28T16:42:00.000-08:002011-01-28T18:12:20.003-08:00RationalityI've stated on here that I believe rationality ought to be part of politics. I go so far as to say that I am a sort of rationalist. I say "sort of" because "Reason", "rationality", and so on, don't mean the same thing to everyone. Not only do people disagree with the meaning and implications of rationalism, they also feel divided on the issue. My "sort of" is rhetorical: I mean to say "reserve your judgment for after you hear me out"<br /><br />I believe that rationality can be summed up with a single, simple maxim: Find reasons for your beliefs which are logically consistent. When you can no longer do this, acknowledge this, but continue to reflect on this hinge proposition.<br /><br />There are no appeals to a universal "making-sense-ness" within the heads of reasonable persons. There is no pointing at the unreasonable, or routing out the irrational, or exercise of epistemic chauvinism. That isn't to say that rationality can't or hasn't been used for these or other negative ends. It certainly can. However, rationality is, in the end, a loose position. It is this looseness that I wish to point out.<br /><br />Suppose I claimed that I believed in God. If someone then asked why, I would say, "Because I experience his existence every day" If they retorted, "Why don't I experience this, if he is so wonderful?" I would reply, "I am ignorant. I wish he made this known to me, but I'm afraid that I can't say"<br /><br />This is a rational position. It is a position I disagree with, but it is a rational position. It is <span style="font-style: italic;">epistemically</span> rational. There is a difference between rationality and proof. Having reasons for your beliefs, finding warrant, and applying these constitently is all that is required to be rational. "Proof" is the deduction of a position from axioms. However, argument, and reasons for positions, are much more varied than deductive systems. One may only use deductive systems to justify their position, but it's not necessary for rationality.<br /><br />I chose "God" because I'm mostly speaking to that group of persons who think that concluding that God does not exist is the only conclusion a rational person who is honest or not arguing for "Feel-good" constructs could come to. Rationality is not so restrictive that the atheist/agnostic/materialist/whatever world-view is a for-ordained conclusion. Beliefs as divergent as "There is no purpose in the world" or "There is a God" or "The World is nothing but Mind" can be justified underneath the rubric of rationality . We can rationally disagree and discover where, and possibly why, we diverge.<br /><br />This doesn't reflect on the "truth" of either claim, or any claim within rationality. Rationality and "truth" are two separate issues: At base, if it were true that irrationality is "true", then rationality would be against "truth". All this is intended to do is point out that "rationality" really, really, really doesn't say that much, and that therefore theism, disagree with it or no, can be rational.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-46519604736670930102011-01-20T19:28:00.001-08:002011-01-20T19:45:35.997-08:00THE experiment of my undergraduate career... is making a standard curve. Today I came into lab, and we were prepping yet another standard curve. I wonder to myself: Is this what Chemists do? Are we always interested in identifying either the identity or concentrations of some substance? Is this only specific to analytical chemistry, or does it translate elsewhere?<br /><br />Not that I would really mind, if that were the case. I'm really good at it, now. R^2 values are regularly .999whatever. Standard deviations are regularly quite tolerable, and this is all by hand. But I also keep on thinking: What can I do with these tools? What can I explain within chemistry with this experimental-theoretical framework? Is there really much left in chemistry to pursue outside of explaining things outside of itself, or improving the apparatusus to be more automated, more precise, more accurate, but not novel?<br /><br />At conferences I've seen a lot of interesting computer modeling projects, where the standard parameters determined experimentally are shown to be able to be calculated from basic quantum mechanically based algorithms -- stuff like the change in gibbs, enthalpy, or energy contributions from solvents, solvent structures, and other modular neatness. But I can't help but think that there has to be some greater theoretical project than simply increasing the resolution of our models, improving the efficiency for identifying substances, or making more accurate estimations of important physical parameters. These would be termed core chemical projects. All other projects seem to involve elucidation of other systems for some other purpose, whether it be interest in a biochemical system, or improvement of some industrial practice.<br /><br />But I'm stuck as to where, or if I tried something new if it'd even be interesting or desirable to try; PhD's earned in respected fields are likely more marketable, after all. I suppose I could memorize a few more reactions, and what they look like, to be better prepared to identify oddities when I see them, or have a handle on unexpected events at a more intuitive level. But I wonder: What novel thing can chemistry do today?FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5238218382620804250.post-76982914941394552772011-01-13T09:56:00.000-08:002011-01-13T10:53:05.895-08:00For AccommodationismThere is a current amongst the atheist blogs I read regarding accommodationist vs. confrontationalist stances. This is my argument for accommodationism as the superior position of the two.<br /><br />Confrontationalism lacks any credible epistemic basis to discredit religion at large, and this is, from what I can tell, what it tries to do. If it does not do this, then the following is incorrect. When I say religion at large, I mean <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> the predominant religious positions within culture today. We'll say Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism. Further, it lacks the moral basis to discredit religion at large. These are the two main issues brought against religion by confrontational atheists. I think that these positions are the product of arguing against weak positions, positions I also stand against, but when generalized to all religions then atheism is making too dogmatic a claim. At that point we're talking politics. If politics, then there are more important issues than atheism to discuss, like war, class, capitalism, genocide, health care, gay rights, science education, and so on. Further, there are religious allies to these political causes, and so if politics, then accommodationism is better for supporting these political points, as well as building a healthy pluralistic environment.<br /><br /><br />On epistemology: The central claim here is that religions are false. The basis that religions are evaluated to be false are scientific claims. However, there exist scientists who are religious. To relegate these scientists to the special, no-counter example corner of "Their beliefs are contradictory" is to play the no true Scotsman card. As such, I have good reason to believe that science does not prove religion false.<br /><br />To know and to believe are two separate things. To know something requires an argument, whether it be a "negative claim" or not. On "Negatives":I can prove a negative, such as the square root of 2 is not rational. Negatives can be proven via the modus tollens inference, or the proof by contradiction. In fact, the often used problem of evil builds itself on the proof by contradiction. However, I don't think the problem of evil works to prove that God does not exist, but only that God is not in this exact way that some rationalist theists thought he was. But, for the major world religions, you didn't need such a proof by contradiction -- God's nature is explicated in far greater detail within the religious tracts than some simple, vague Three-O reference.<br /><br />Lastly, there is an emphasis on evidence based claims. Why, and what does it even mean? If all we mean is, "Well, it's nice to have data", then I have no problem. If what we mean is ,"the existence of pH meters proves that God does not exist", then I'm claiming that this is a little senseless. The whole "evidence based claims" meme sounds great as a talking point, works fine against creationism, but could really do with a little more ground work to support it.<br /><br /><br />On moral claims: Atheists are personally moral, as are many theists. To point to the Catholic abuses of children, the crusades, and so on doesn't say anything. You need to show that religion is the causal culprit. Without a causal argument one must admit that atheism leads to mass murder, as the USSR performed mass murder. Clearly no one in the atheist community believes this, so one should admit that the correlation between theism and child molestation doesn't follow causally.<br /><br />Further, if the atheists lack an epistemic basis to claim that religion is false, and continue to claim that religion is false for epistemic reasons, then the atheists are loosing moral credibility with respect to truth-claims in that they are demonstrating an inability to self-reflect, which is an important part of moral deliberation.<br /><br /><br />As neither epistemic or moral claims counter religion as a whole very well, we should get down to the brass tacks of politics. Accommodationism is a superior politic to confrontationalism because it's more honest about our epistemic certainty, it allows bridges to be built between the atheist community and theist communities who are friendly towards the same political end goals, such as gay rights and science education, and it plays a better PR role. In fact, accommodationism is the correct position, not the weak and scared position that's too afraid to "say anything". Accommodationists are skeptical of strong negative claims, and find things outside of metaphysical speculation, such as science education vs. thoughts on the existence of god, to be more important. As the confrontationlists have said, let us not mince words. Religion, at large, can stand on its own two feet, and atheists don't have a good basis to claim that it doesn't do so in its entirety. The confrontationalist position is poorly thought out, lacks self reflection, and the conclusions it purports to prove are simply wrong if it's swinging its rhetoric at religion as a whole. As such, accommodationism is the only position that is epistemically and morally worthwhile, whether or not confrontationalists are angry about this fact or not. While there are some religions that deserve scorn and derision, the claim that all major religions are false is simply an unsupported belief.FUGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06054973815798878557noreply@blogger.com0